The Hotel End
March 28, 2024, 11:12:36 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
  Home Help Search Arcade Downloads Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register Chat  

New Trust statement on club finances

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ... 41   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: New Trust statement on club finances  (Read 35201 times)
0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.
guest3359
Guest

Badges: (View All)
« Reply #260 on: July 07, 2021, 12:24:02 pm »

Completely agree. I guess there is one other option - if this did happen and it can be traced back to one individual acting on their own then the Trust could (and I'd argue should) just throw that individual under the bus. I hasten to add I know nothing about it this is the case or not! I do get the impression there are factions within the Trust though and I don't think all of those factions are particularly helpful, so it wouldn't surprise me if this were the case, particularly as I genuinely believe the majority of the Trust are well intentioned.
I've been critical of the Trust and IF the press thing is true, the person(s) involved should leave the board. However I dont agree that they should be thrown under a bus or anything public. I dont doubt their passion for the club, and Im sure they believed they were doing the right thing. This shouldn't become personal to individual(s) and have any personal impact
Report Spam   Logged
guest3338
Guest

Badges: (View All)
« Reply #261 on: July 07, 2021, 12:26:01 pm »

If the club make the first move and release the "evidence" then they will be seen as the aggressor and it won't do them any favours as they are attacking their own supporters Trust.
Not sure I agree with this. From the body of opinion already on here most people seem to view the clubs account with more validity than the Trusts so I dont think the club going public is going to change the majority opinion. Why should the club have any regrets about anything then if they simply clarify their position with evidence.
On the other hand if they choose not to, won't add fuel to the idea that the Trust are being unfairly kicked by the club?

To paraphrase Tel.
IF THE CLUB HAVE ANY EVIDENCE WHICH DISCR3DITS THE TRUST THEN STOP PUSSY FOOTING AROUND AND PUBLISH IT 😂😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤪

Lol.
Report Spam   Logged
BackOfTheNet
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5882


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Search Level 6 Combination
« Reply #262 on: July 07, 2021, 12:29:07 pm »

Not sure I agree with this. From the body of opinion already on here most people seem to view the clubs account with more validity than the Trusts so I dont think the club going public is going to change the majority opinion. Why should the club have any regrets about anything then if they simply clarify their position with evidence.
On the other hand if they choose not to, won't add fuel to the idea that the Trust are being unfairly kicked by the club?

To paraphrase Tel.
IF THE CLUB HAVE ANY EVIDENCE WHICH DISCR3DITS THE TRUST THEN STOP **** FOOTING AROUND AND PUBLISH IT 😂😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤪

Lol.

You may be right. It's all pretty unseemly, to be honest.
Report Spam   Logged

The Hotelend Grand National* Sweepstake Champion 2020
everbrite
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20217


Steve Howard best since Cliff Holton


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
20000 Posts Search Apple User
« Reply #263 on: July 07, 2021, 12:51:07 pm »

This continual argument ref the Club v Trust seems to be getting out of hand; judging by some of the recent contributions.
IMO we may well need the Trust in the future as a rallying point if things get dodgy.
Report Spam   Logged

2020 Grand National S/S 3rd Place
guest49
Guest

Badges: (View All)
« Reply #264 on: July 07, 2021, 12:53:18 pm »

In case anyone missed it, it’s pretty clear the letter was given to a fan who asked KT for info, who then decided to publish it. Over on ‘Shoe Army’ FB page.
Unless KT is really green, he probably had a good idea it would end up in the public domain.
Make if that as you will but it’s not going to make front page national news.
Report Spam   Logged
Another Pedj
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1321


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Search Apple User Windows User
« Reply #265 on: July 07, 2021, 13:07:34 pm »

This continual argument ref the Club v Trust seems to be getting out of hand; judging by some of the recent contributions.
IMO we may well need the Trust in the future as a rallying point if things get dodgy.

If that situation arises would you seriously  wish to have anyone connected to the Trust board involved?
Report Spam   Logged
MCHammer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1342


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Search 1000 Posts Apple User
« Reply #266 on: July 07, 2021, 13:45:58 pm »

The letter in question, now how did that find its way onto Twitter?
There’s only two ways, from the club or the recipient, this really is turning nasty.

Here's what I know.

The trust released their statement on Saturday.  On Twitter and Facebook various debates ensued about the trust statement with many of the usual suspects from both sides appearing and shouting each other down.  Ian Gill (I doubt he'll mind me naming him as his identity is on the letter he released asked the Trust Reps/Members that were debating him to release a 5 page letter regarding the Chinese deal from last year.  He made this request about 4/5 times to the various individuals.  Do you know what happened?  All of those that were giving him a hard time dissapeared from the conversation and no further replies were made.  Not even a "what document are you talking about?".

I found this interesting and why I mentioned something along these lines in my posts earlier in the week.  A) what is the document and B) He'd clearly hit a nerve from the sudden climb down and lack of reponse.  Over the next few days he asked again a few times from what I can see.  Silence from the trust side of the debate.

In the absence of any replies to his request he then posted a tweet yesterday containing the letter in question (see my earlier links).  He had to take down his tweet because he had rather stupidly left the recipients full address on it.  So he reposted apologising and having covered the address.

He then posted the covering letter from Kelvin to him which explains why the letter from last year had been supplied to him.  Ian claims he had permission to share it which in fairness is implied in Kelvins letter in that he would have expected the Trust to have shared it with it's members last year.

So why does any of this matter?  Well to some that don't care it doesn't and if so why are you even reading this?

To those that do care from EITHER side I think it's important.

I see people online mainly those linked to the Trust dismissing it as "it tells us nothing we didn't already know".  Well that might be the case  TODAY although I doubt there isn't some new content in there for some people.  Even if it's just the allegations regarding the trust or their reps contacting media outlets.  Which if true by the way surely any fan or member would have questions about?

Ask yourself would it have told you something new last September when they were sent it?  Did you know the Trust had put these accusations directly to KT and that he had responded with an explanation?  Did they put that in their timeline at the weekend?  Does it make the decision to publicly back the development deal two weeks after this letter even more confusing?  Did this letter clear up their concerns?  Were they backed into a corner?  If they still had concerns why did they agree to support the deal?  What's changed since then and now?

Is it starting to make sense now why I asked the questions I did on Monday?  It's all about timing and context and supporters being given all the information to make their own minds up not a partial view.  

Information is 100% the reason I asked the Trust questions the other day.  I'm not trying to hang anyone out to dry here.  Which by the way I emailed my questions to the Trust on Monday evening as requested and will share the answers with everyone when I get a reply if anyone is interested.

Of course all this looks like I'm giving the trust a hard time and in fairness I am.   But my motivation is becuase I don't want a partial version of events I want THE version of events.  Don't tell me KT/the club won't answer your 25 questions...tell me they wouldn't in writing but offered a Zoom meeting for all supporters which we declined.  If you are meeting with councillors to voice your concerns tell me what those concerns are and minute the meeting so I can see what exactly was discussed.  If you have concerns about the Chinese deal tell me specifically what they are and whether you have spoken to the relevant authorities and what did they say?  If you had concerns and raised it with the club what did they say?

All this matters because you are then being completely transparent and open which is what they should ALWAYS be because they are acting for their membership and ultimately ALL OF US SUPPORTERS.  You then put yourself in a perfect position of power to then criticise the owners of the club for not doing the same.

In the same way the Trust shouldn't have to send 25 questions to KT in writing I shouldn't have to send 10 questions via email to the Trust to obtain information I should already have been told or could access on their website.
Report Spam   Logged
claretparrot
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 598


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Search Combination Topic Starter
« Reply #267 on: July 07, 2021, 13:46:13 pm »

IMO we may well need the Trust in the future as a rallying point if things get dodgy.

I'd argue that we may well benefit from a trust.
Report Spam   Logged
Manwork04
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9299



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Windows User Mobile User Spammer 25 Posts in one day
« Reply #268 on: July 07, 2021, 13:48:12 pm »

Without prejudice, I think the Trust are alleging that,

KT and DB received £6.7m for 60% of their shares
5 U sport didn’t deliver any more capital after the initial £6.7m and therefore breached the contract.
KT and DB then reacquired control of the club AND kept the £6.7m less costs?

IMO whilst they are entitled to do this, they then want the £10/£7m debt back (which they are absolutely entitled to) and then half the profit of the land without outlining what’s in it for the club.

To me the trust are simply trying to outline what’s in this for the club aside from completion of the east stand and a debt free club. Remember according to the Trust allegedly KT AND DB have already pocketed circa £6m from their association and to date haven’t honoured their commitment to complete the stand.
Report Spam   Logged

Rule Britannia
claretparrot
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 598


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Search Combination Topic Starter
« Reply #269 on: July 07, 2021, 13:49:50 pm »

Here's what I know.

The trust released their statement on Saturday.  On Twitter and Facebook various debates ensued about the trust statement with many of the usual suspects from both sides appearing and shouting each other down.  Ian Gill (I doubt he'll mind me naming him as his identity is on the letter he released asked the Trust Reps/Members that were debating him to release a 5 page letter regarding the Chinese deal from last year.  He made this request about 4/5 times to the various individuals.  Do you know what happened?  All of those that were giving him a hard time dissapeared from the conversation and no further replies were made.  Not even a "what document are you talking about?".

I found this interesting and why I mentioned something along these lines in my posts earlier in the week.  A) what is the document and B) He'd clearly hit a nerve from the sudden climb down and lack of reponse.  Over the next few days he asked again a few times from what I can see.  Silence from the trust side of the debate.

In the absence of any replies to his request he then posted a tweet yesterday containing the letter in question (see my earlier links).  He had to take down his tweet because he had rather stupidly left the recipients full address on it.  So he reposted apologising and having covered the address.

He then posted the covering letter from Kelvin to him which explains why the letter from last year had been supplied to him.  Ian claims he had permission to share it which in fairness is implied in Kelvins letter in that he would have expected the Trust to have shared it with it's members last year.

So why does any of this matter?  Well to some that don't care it doesn't and if so why are you even reading this?

To those that do care from EITHER side I think it's important.

I see people online mainly those linked to the Trust dismissing it as "it tells us nothing we didn't already know".  Well that might be the case  TODAY although I doubt there isn't some new content in there for some people.  Even if it's just the allegations regarding the trust or their reps contacting media outlets.  Which if true by the way surely any fan or member would have questions about?

Ask yourself would it have told you something new last September when they were sent it?  Did you know the Trust had put these accusations directly to KT and that he had responded with an explanation?  Did they put that in their timeline at the weekend?  Does it make the decision to publicly back the development deal two weeks after this letter even more confusing?  Did this letter clear up their concerns?  Were they backed into a corner?  If they still had concerns why did they agree to support the deal?  What's changed since then and now?

Is it starting to make sense now why I asked the questions I did on Monday?  It's all about timing and context and supporters being given all the information to make their own minds up not a partial view.  

Information is 100% the reason I asked the Trust questions the other day.  I'm not trying to hang anyone out to dry here.  Which by the way I emailed my questions to the Trust on Monday evening as requested and will share the answers with everyone when I get a reply if anyone is interested.

Of course all this looks like I'm giving the trust a hard time and in fairness I am.   But my motivation is becuase I don't want a partial version of events I want THE version of events.  Don't tell me KT/the club won't answer your 25 questions...tell me they wouldn't in writing but offered a Zoom meeting for all supporters which we declined.  If you are meeting with councillors to voice your concerns tell me what those concerns are and minute the meeting so I can see what exactly was discussed.  If you have concerns about the Chinese deal tell me specifically what they are and whether you have spoken to the relevant authorities and what did they say?  If you had concerns and raised it with the club what did they say?

All this matters because you are then being completely transparent and open which is what they should ALWAYS be because they are acting for their membership and ultimately ALL OF US SUPPORTERS.  You then put yourself in a perfect position of power to then criticise the owners of the club for not doing the same.

In the same way the Trust shouldn't have to send 25 questions to KT in writing I shouldn't have to send 10 questions via email to the Trust to obtain information I should already have been told or could access on their website.

Really excellent post
Report Spam   Logged
guest1269
Guest

Badges: (View All)
« Reply #270 on: July 07, 2021, 13:56:49 pm »

I'd argue that we may well benefit from a trust.

Exactly the point - any Trust, particularly in difficult times needs to be fit for purpose and representing the majority view of its membership - if it doesn’t do this or portrays itself as some moral/legal guardian of the club then the individual should form an organisation neither labelled as a trust nor suggesting the represent the majority of fans - I’ve no idea of the truth behind the developing spat but I certainly don’t feel the trust is behaving in the manner the original trust concept embraced.
Report Spam   Logged
Manwork04
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9299



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Windows User Mobile User Spammer 25 Posts in one day
« Reply #271 on: July 07, 2021, 13:56:55 pm »

Here's what I know.

The trust released their statement on Saturday.  On Twitter and Facebook various debates ensued about the trust statement with many of the usual suspects from both sides appearing and shouting each other down.  Ian Gill (I doubt he'll mind me naming him as his identity is on the letter he released asked the Trust Reps/Members that were debating him to release a 5 page letter regarding the Chinese deal from last year.  He made this request about 4/5 times to the various individuals.  Do you know what happened?  All of those that were giving him a hard time dissapeared from the conversation and no further replies were made.  Not even a "what document are you talking about?".

I found this interesting and why I mentioned something along these lines in my posts earlier in the week.  A) what is the document and B) He'd clearly hit a nerve from the sudden climb down and lack of reponse.  Over the next few days he asked again a few times from what I can see.  Silence from the trust side of the debate.

In the absence of any replies to his request he then posted a tweet yesterday containing the letter in question (see my earlier links).  He had to take down his tweet because he had rather stupidly left the recipients full address on it.  So he reposted apologising and having covered the address.

He then posted the covering letter from Kelvin to him which explains why the letter from last year had been supplied to him.  Ian claims he had permission to share it which in fairness is implied in Kelvins letter in that he would have expected the Trust to have shared it with it's members last year.

So why does any of this matter?  Well to some that don't care it doesn't and if so why are you even reading this?

To those that do care from EITHER side I think it's important.

I see people online mainly those linked to the Trust dismissing it as "it tells us nothing we didn't already know".  Well that might be the case  TODAY although I doubt there isn't some new content in there for some people.  Even if it's just the allegations regarding the trust or their reps contacting media outlets.  Which if true by the way surely any fan or member would have questions about?

Ask yourself would it have told you something new last September when they were sent it?  Did you know the Trust had put these accusations directly to KT and that he had responded with an explanation?  Did they put that in their timeline at the weekend?  Does it make the decision to publicly back the development deal two weeks after this letter even more confusing?  Did this letter clear up their concerns?  Were they backed into a corner?  If they still had concerns why did they agree to support the deal?  What's changed since then and now?

Is it starting to make sense now why I asked the questions I did on Monday?  It's all about timing and context and supporters being given all the information to make their own minds up not a partial view.  

Information is 100% the reason I asked the Trust questions the other day.  I'm not trying to hang anyone out to dry here.  Which by the way I emailed my questions to the Trust on Monday evening as requested and will share the answers with everyone when I get a reply if anyone is interested.

Of course all this looks like I'm giving the trust a hard time and in fairness I am.   But my motivation is becuase I don't want a partial version of events I want THE version of events.  Don't tell me KT/the club won't answer your 25 questions...tell me they wouldn't in writing but offered a Zoom meeting for all supporters which we declined.  If you are meeting with councillors to voice your concerns tell me what those concerns are and minute the meeting so I can see what exactly was discussed.  If you have concerns about the Chinese deal tell me specifically what they are and whether you have spoken to the relevant authorities and what did they say?  If you had concerns and raised it with the club what did they say?

All this matters because you are then being completely transparent and open which is what they should ALWAYS be because they are acting for their membership and ultimately ALL OF US SUPPORTERS.  You then put yourself in a perfect position of power to then criticise the owners of the club for not doing the same.

In the same way the Trust shouldn't have to send 25 questions to KT in writing I shouldn't have to send 10 questions via email to the Trust to obtain information I should already have been told or could access on their website.
I can’t really disagree with any of that apart from its all aimed at the Trust, surely the exact same questions should be asked of the club?
I’m all for balance but at the moment everything is against the Trust, quite rightly we should have transparency from them BUT the same goes for the club and I’m not seeing that……
Report Spam   Logged

Rule Britannia
Manwork04
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9299



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Windows User Mobile User Spammer 25 Posts in one day
« Reply #272 on: July 07, 2021, 13:59:18 pm »

Exactly the point - any Trust, particularly in difficult times needs to be fit for purpose and representing the majority view of its membership - if it doesn’t do this or portrays itself as some moral/legal guardian of the club then the individual should form an organisation neither labelled as a trust nor suggesting the represent the majority of fans - I’ve no idea of the truth behind the developing spat but I certainly don’t feel the trust is behaving in the manner the original trust concept embraced.
WHAT ABOUT THE CLUBS BEHAVIOUR?
Report Spam   Logged

Rule Britannia
claretparrot
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 598


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Search Combination Topic Starter
« Reply #273 on: July 07, 2021, 14:00:42 pm »

Without prejudice, I think the Trust are alleging that,

KT and DB received £6.7m for 60% of their shares
5 U sport didn’t deliver any more capital after the initial £6.7m and therefore breached the contract.
KT and DB then reacquired control of the club AND kept the £6.7m less costs?

IMO whilst they are entitled to do this, they then want the £10/£7m debt back (which they are absolutely entitled to) and then half the profit of the land without outlining what’s in it for the club.

To me the trust are simply trying to outline what’s in this for the club aside from completion of the east stand and a debt free club. Remember according to the Trust allegedly KT AND DB have already pocketed circa £6m from their association and to date haven’t honoured their commitment to complete the stand.


Manny, whilst your line of argument is very consistent it also has some holes in it.

1. None of us know how much of the agreed consideration KT & DB actually received for their shares and/or how much of that was cash and/or how much of it was returned when the whole 5USport thing fell over. Correct me if I'm wrong?
2. Even if they did 'pocket' £6-7m for the shares and keep it, that is between them and 5USport. You & I may not like it, but that alone doesn't mean anyone has done anything wrong
3. Even if they did 'pocket' £6-7m for the shares and keep it, they have to-date ploughed £6-7m into the club's running costs, so they are at best back where they started and at worst £6-7m down on the deal as things stand

I asked you a couple of direct questions on a related thread, before all this blew up, and you chose to ignore them. I'll try again with one more:
Is this latest 'revelation' from the Trust the same thing(s) you've been relentlessly hinting about on here for weeks, when implying that there has been some less than savoury activity going on at the club and/or at the hands of the current ownership?
Report Spam   Logged
guest1269
Guest

Badges: (View All)
« Reply #274 on: July 07, 2021, 14:10:30 pm »

Without prejudice, I think the Trust are alleging that,

KT and DB received £6.7m for 60% of their shares
5 U sport didn’t deliver any more capital after the initial £6.7m and therefore breached the contract.
KT and DB then reacquired control of the club AND kept the £6.7m less costs?

IMO whilst they are entitled to do this, they then want the £10/£7m debt back (which they are absolutely entitled to) and then half the profit of the land without outlining what’s in it for the club.

To me the trust are simply trying to outline what’s in this for the club aside from completion of the east stand and a debt free club. Remember according to the Trust allegedly KT AND DB have already pocketed circa £6m from their association and to date haven’t honoured their commitment to complete the stand.

Good summary and not withstanding it’s an understanding rather than a statement of fact but probably clarifies a rather confused picture - however a couple of points, firstly on both the issues you concede the owners are entitled to take that course of action (even if we don’t think it’s the best deal for the club) - if that’s the case statement made so why does it need all these bitter exchanges. Secondly and I know I’m repeating myself but no one (on here at least) actually knows what money changed hands on the Chinese - for those hell bent on accusing the owners of self interest it’s petrol on the fire to say they pocketed £6 million plus but in reality we don’t actually know
Report Spam   Logged
guest1269
Guest

Badges: (View All)
« Reply #275 on: July 07, 2021, 14:15:13 pm »

WHAT ABOUT THE CLUBS BEHAVIOUR?


No need for SHOUT MAIL 😁

Absolutely the club does have some significant transparency and time line questions but I was specifically addressing the rather naive comment that we need the trust.
Report Spam   Logged
Manwork04
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9299



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Windows User Mobile User Spammer 25 Posts in one day
« Reply #276 on: July 07, 2021, 14:19:03 pm »

Manny, whilst your line of argument is very consistent it also has some holes in it.

1. None of us know how much of the agreed consideration KT & DB actually received for their shares and/or how much of that was cash and/or how much of it was returned when the whole 5USport thing fell over. Correct me if I'm wrong?
2. Even if they did 'pocket' £6-7m for the shares and keep it, that is between them and 5USport. You & I may not like it, but that alone doesn't mean anyone has done anything wrong
3. Even if they did 'pocket' £6-7m for the shares and keep it, they have to-date ploughed £6-7m into the club's running costs, so they are at best back where they started and at worst £6-7m down on the deal as things stand

I asked you a couple of direct questions on a related thread, before all this blew up, and you chose to ignore them. I'll try again with one more:
Is this latest 'revelation' from the Trust the same thing(s) you've been relentlessly hinting about on here for weeks, when implying that there has been some less than savoury activity going on at the club and/or at the hands of the current ownership?
I agree with all that except I believe the Trust has evidence of the transactions.
I did know all of this prior to the release.
Some people have been going over the top with accusations, which in a vacuum of information from the club was always going to happen.
I have no further comments.

I think the point is KT and DB have according to the Trust broken even and still are pleading poverty, you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know that will pîss important people off.

IMO the club needs to clear this up once and for all and put it to bed.
Let’s have a good deal of KT, DB, the club and council, FFS put the egos down get around a table and bash out a deal. I always find a meeting with no chairs gets to a satisfactory conclusion quicker.
Report Spam   Logged

Rule Britannia
Manwork04
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9299



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Windows User Mobile User Spammer 25 Posts in one day
« Reply #277 on: July 07, 2021, 14:21:59 pm »

No need for SHOUT MAIL 😁

Absolutely the club does have some significant transparency and time line questions but I was specifically addressing the rather naive comment that we need the trust.
SORRY 🤫
Report Spam   Logged

Rule Britannia
guest1269
Guest

Badges: (View All)
« Reply #278 on: July 07, 2021, 14:24:15 pm »

SORRY 🤫

No Problem
Report Spam   Logged
guest1269
Guest

Badges: (View All)
« Reply #279 on: July 07, 2021, 14:26:28 pm »



IMO the club needs to clear this up once and for all and put it to bed.
Let’s have a good deal of KT, DB, the club and council, FFS put the egos down get around a table and bash out a deal. I always find a meeting with no chairs gets to a satisfactory conclusion quicker.


Wisest words of today!
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ... 41   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Parental guidance is urged as this messageboard may not be suitable for all persons especially those under the age of 16 as the forums may contain words, phrases and expressions not considered appropriate for a younger audience so please express caution. If any posts in the forums offend you, please let us know and we will look at them and if we agree with your complaint, we will remove them. You are personally responsible and potentially liable for the contents of your posting and may be sued should your posting contain content of a defamatory or other illegal nature. Every message posted leaves a traceable IP number. We check the forums at various times of the day and remove offending posts. Other supporters are welcome but abusive or silly posts will be removed and the offenders potentially barred from future access to the site. We advise that you never reveal any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example: telephone number, home address or email address), and please do not include postal addresses of any kind. This messageboard is not endorsed or in any way affiliated with Northampton Town FC. All postings on this board become copyright of The Hotel End & may not be reproduced without the permission of the board administrator. By signing up to this message board you agree to this. The Hotel End cannot be held liable for the actions or postings of its members. The Hotel End reserve the right to edit, delete, move or close any thread for any reason. The Hotel End may disclose user information to government authorities at their discretion or when required by law. The Hotel End may also disclose user information when The Hotel End has reason to believe that someone is causing injury to or interference with its rights or property, other The Hotel End users, or anyone else that could be harmed by such activities. By registering for The Hotel End, you agree to indemnify The Hotel End its representatives, and agents, and hold them harmless from any and all claims (including claims for legal fees) which may arise from your participation on the The Hotel End. You also agree that The Hotel End is not responsible for the materials posted by users of The Hotel End. In addition, you grant The Hotel End and its affiliates, worldwide, royalty-free perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display any message or content posted on The Hotel End and/or e-mail sent by you to The Hotel End (in whole or in part). The Hotel End reserves the right to make the rules up as it goes along. Thank you - The Hotel End I love Quidco
Bookmark this site!
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy